Our universe its creation and its contents

[Alan McDougall]

The physical universe

All information, both past, present, and future, exists in the ““Superconsciousness”.” The “Superconsciousness” (or Collective Mind) transcends time and space and with diligent practice, is consciously accessible from the deep state of awareness.

Sentient“ intelligent beings in the universe are interconnected in what I call the Superconsciousness” this is not God, it is where information comes from for all accurate predictions and visions, whether auditory, visual, or emotional. It encompasses all that is and all that will be in our universe. In truth, it is where our thoughts go to and come from.

We only perceive these whispering thoughts in our brain and usually take little notice of them but we should try to be more aware and connect with this source of universal knowledge for the benefit of humankind, we have learned to filter out them to our disadvantage.

I see it as something similar to the hive mind of the bee or ant but that, which connects all higher beings in one consciousness throughout the universe. I speculate this “Superconsciousness” is finite consisting of finite albeit highly intelligent life forms throughout the universe and “is not the infinite creator God” but one of his creations. A sort of galactic, or universal internet, think how useful this source would be if only we could gain access to it when we want to?

Maybe the universe is a sleeping giant a sort colossal being and we are just neurons within it, but I don’t really like this idea of a living evolving intelligent universe

The physical universe is unimaginably beautiful a crown diamond the most precious jewel in of Gods crown his achievement a creation with for he was well pleased, exploding with life and light. These are some of the heavens that declare the glory of God

Strange worlds revolving around other stars within other galaxies, are painted in a myriad of colors unknown and unseen of earth blazed, flashed, revolved in glorious maelstroms like colossal aurora borealis in such glory in the heavily planes and the physical universe that would have blinded human eyes.

Cerulean clouds of energy rolled and merged changing into aubergine, incarnadine and green viridity, gladeen, misord, bladgreed, blueploom, surgrrezeing, astromosterdram, these words for some of these colors just entered my mind and I remembered then for this document. Beings on planets such as these communicate by flashing colours of a billion different shades and spectrum's, each subtle shade can have a particular meaning of mean more than all the data on earth in a moment

“Plasma Beings” using magnetic energy in beautiful alabaster like robes, joined our journey and raced across the ethereal realms with us like dolphins do on earth. I remembered a story I had read as a child “I am the magnetic body electric” I had this type of body for too short a time (of course there is no concept of time, but is the best word here)

There are plasma beings Dwellers on the furnaces of the suns, to them the inferno we call the surface of a sun or star is cool life giving warmth. They survive on magnetic energy.

I went amongst the stars, saw their mighty glory and glorious multi-colored planets, and observed great beings with huge gossamer wings that were a million kilometers from wingtip to wingtip, which sailed on radiant light in the dark oceans of space that makes up most of the universe.

Some worlds were so similar to earth that at first I thought I was looking at earth or a city of earth. But a closer look revealed odd differences, the gait of the beings, their transport vehicles all differed minutely.

On other world the entities were so odd so different that I thought they were just part of the background a rock or a long thin dark looking tree, but they are highly evolved sentient beings like us.

Size is relative and there are huge entities and entities unimaginable small, most very small life form are hive based minds and at the hive level sentient and intelligent with purpose.

Some lived at a much slower rate than humans, their year a billion years compared to ours. They do not know we exist; we are fleeting vibrating electrons to them.

Far in the utter dark of space dark worlds exist in the void remote from any other are worlds hanging alone in the abysmal cold of absolute zero. But are these worlds dead and void of life? Not so, beings exist on them and they live so slowly that the life of the universe is but a day to them. To them ice is a raging inferno.

Other beings come into existence like a fundamental particle, live and die in one infinitesimal moment, to small for our best instrument to measure, but they are intelligent living beings like us.

The creation of our physical universe was spoken to me in these few profound mighty words

New creation started again. (The infinite eternal cycle of existence)

The colossal infinite mind and intellect of the Ever Existing One looked out at a new empty infinite dark void, became aware and out at the dark void of nothing, contemplated and said “let there be light” As I Am boundless I will create something with the potential to become like myself and eternal.

He decided to create homes (beautiful blue water worlds) and beautiful life, from the substance of the inexhaustible energy of the many dimensions of his being.

The Lord created me in the beginning of his works, before all else, when he set the heavens in their place, I was there, before he made the earth, I was his darling child and played the creation game, in eternal joy with him. I was his craftsman and his companion and delight. Wisdom and word is my name and I was with him before all creation. He is the ancient of days and I am his eternal son.

We together created mighty superstrings and weaved them together with colossal strands of energetic light coloured in beautiful magnificent opalescence into the very fabric of reality and a new unimaginably beautiful universe was born in glory and delight.

We sang together the song of creation and the new universe began to vibrate with countless frequencies of light, glory translucent and everlasting with the vibrations of the song of existence. The singer sang the song, the painter the painting, the creator the creation.

The universe then began to weave, dance, and vibrate flux and vortex into one colossal maelstrom, spiral in perfect order from the mind of the eternal one The Universe danced and sang with joy. The dancer danced and sang along with his new creation.

Great huge blue/ white fusion fire stars formed from primeval hydrogen, lived a short two million years exploding a colossal Supernovae so that new long living golden fusion stars, containing all the other elements necessary for life could form from their dust and join together into great beautiful billions of huge galaxies..

Each galaxy contained thousands of billions of yellow golden long life stars like Sol, which, would each burn in beauty for 20 billion stable years. the heavy substances of life were know contained in each star so that blue- water beautiful worlds like earth could form and be the cradle of mortal life.

Oh! How we rejoiced together that wonderful day. The mighty suns began to sing together the beautiful song of creation across the vastness of the marvelous new mighty universe. All sang together in wonderful harmony.

In pristine beauty the planet earth was created.

But God hesitated and decided to first create immortal companions Angels of light that would serve him, without question.

He then looked at that most unique and beautiful pristine of water blue worlds, planet earth in a beautiful universe, we call it planet earth and the sun around which it revolves is called Sol.

God then created all the creatures on the earth and in the universe gave humanity a colossal complex brain so that they could look after all the creatures on blessed mother earth. He gave humanity one thing unique from all the other creatures, namely, a free will without any restrictions or reservations or conditions.

_____________________________________

[The Atheist]

Interesting you denied proselytising when I suggested that's what you were doing from the start.

Looks very much like it to me.

[Alan McDougall]

Interesting you denied proselytising when I suggested that's what you were doing from the start.

Looks very much like it to me.

You have brought to to the position of seriously considering unsubscibing from this forum, how the heck can I proselyse my own work??

[The Atheist]

You have brought to to the position of seriously considering unsubscibing from this forum, how the heck can I proselyse my own work??

Proselytising is just preaching a particular brand of thought, which is what you're doing. Doesn't matter who wrote it.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but you've started several threads, all with extremely long and near-identical thoughts. If you want to discuss rather than preach, why don't you just wait to see if you generate replies?

[Alan McDougall]

Proselytising is just preaching a particular brand of thought, which is what you're doing. Doesn't matter who wrote it.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but you've started several threads, all with extremely long and near-identical thoughts. If you want to discuss rather than preach, why don't you just wait to see if you generate replies?

I accept that critique from you, it was not my intention to always post long threads, from now on I will enter the fray and debate and communicate as best I can , heck I might even become a valued member

What I did not join the forum was to trade insults with you or any other member. What I expected from a forum of writers was critique and guidance in style grammar etc so hopefully I can make my work more readable


Your gripes with me would have been much more effective if you had contacted me by PM

Alan

[The Atheist]

I accept that critique from you, it was not my intention to always post long threads, from now on I will enter the fray and debate and communicate as best I can , heck I might even become a valued member

You already are - you're here & posting, which makes you as valuable as any other. As I say, I'm not trying to give you a hard time.


What I expected from a forum of writers was critique and guidance in style grammar etc so hopefully I can make my work more readable

That's a problem, because it's not really a writers' forum, but a book-lovers' forum. Some of them are writers, but it's not the prime driver.

If you want advice from that angle, I could only point to length and repetition as two things which will turn a reader off, and I think you could edit the posts in half and gain clarity.


Your gripes with me would have been much more effective if you had contacted me by PM

Alan

I never really use PMs unless someone sends me one first.

I figure that it's a public forum, so I try to keep my comments public.

[Alan McDougall]

Noted and Accepted!!

Alan

[blazeofglory]

You seem to be navigating the inner realm, a realm of consciousness wherein you come across some supernatural phenomena or something not perceivable physically but only spiritually.

But do we really or can we really experience such experiences? Or this is just the creation of mind or simply wordiness.

Of course when we write a piece we must make abundant use of imagination or we must spin ideas our of imagination or thought making so many analogies or piecing together fragments or parts to get a whole.

But your curiosity or inquisitiveness seem very pervasive and you can navigate the realm with your ideas in such a way that it entertains us but the content of reality in what you said is debatable.

[Judas130]

All information, both past, present, and future, exists in the ““Superconsciousness”.




In the year 2300, Google's plan to index all the world's information and make it searchable could be achieved, according to Eric E. Schmidt

:crash:

[NikolaiI]

I will admit I don't have time to read all of your writings. But in Hinduism there are thought to be beings on the sun too. :)

The analogy is given, we can't liven in the earth, or the ocean, yet there are many millions of living beings in both of those places, same with the sun...

[The Atheist]

The analogy is given, we can't liven in the earth, or the ocean, yet there are many millions of living beings in both of those places, same with the sun...

Are you saying things live on the sun? Nothing can live there.

[NikolaiI]

Are you saying things live on the sun? Nothing can live there.

I am not saying that, but I am saying that Hinduism says that. :)

[The Atheist]

I am not saying that, but I am saying that Hinduism says that. :)

Wow, I've never heard that one before. Fancy a religion being so wrong!

[NikolaiI]

Wow, I've never heard that one before. Fancy a religion being so wrong!

It isn't necessarily wrong, Atheist.

They give some examples. We think that nothing can live on the sun because it's too hot. Well, we can't live on the sun. But also, we can't live in the earth or in the water, but there are millions of creatures living in those places. It is impossible for us to live there, but others are suited to it.

I am not saying it is true, I think it is probably not true, but it isn't necessarily impossible.

[Alan McDougall]

Plasma beings dance and frolic in the cool their great cool oceans, we call sunspots

[The Atheist]

It isn't necessarily wrong, Atheist.

They give some examples. We think that nothing can live on the sun because it's too hot. Well, we can't live on the sun. But also, we can't live in the earth or in the water, but there are millions of creatures living in those places. It is impossible for us to live there, but others are suited to it.

I am not saying it is true, I think it is probably not true, but it isn't necessarily impossible.

Well, it is necessarily wrong, because there is no way life can exist on the sun.

It isn't just the heat, it's suggesting that something could live in the middle of an ongoing, gigantic hydrogen fusion explosion.

It can't be considered a possibility, even a very remote one.

[blazeofglory]

Well, it is necessarily wrong, because there is no way life can exist on the sun.

It isn't just the heat, it's suggesting that something could live in the middle of an ongoing, gigantic hydrogen fusion explosion.

It can't be considered a possibility, even a very remote one.

Scientific ideas are hypothetical. I have read an article recently in Newsweek that the whole concept of the black hole or the big bang is hypothetical.

Maybe what Darwin has concluded can be hypothetical

[NikolaiI]

Well, it is necessarily wrong, because there is no way life can exist on the sun.

It isn't just the heat, it's suggesting that something could live in the middle of an ongoing, gigantic hydrogen fusion explosion.

It can't be considered a possibility, even a very remote one.

Look, it may seem impossible, but that doesn't mean it necessarily is. There are countless examples of things we have thought were impossible turning out to be true, and one day widespread common knowledge.

To a microbe, the existence and what is human life is beyond conceivable. Yet millions or billions or trillions of them live inside and one very human body, yet to them we are completely and entirely beyond conceivability. So in the same way, a being who lives on the sun is completely beyond the our conceivability. And therefore you deny it as strongly as possible, but I am saying, it may not necessarily be so.

We can't know that it isn't possible. The reason for this is, again, the countless examples of assumptions of impossibility proving wrong.

How do you know it is impossible that, as Alan McDougall says, a plasma-based life form could exist? How do you know that it is impossible for a light-based life-form to exist? For that matter, how do you know, beyond even a remote possibility, that the sun itself is not sentient? It's my position that it may or may not be, but I cannot know for sure; in fact I don't spend time or energy wondering, but if it arises, then I am of the position that we do not know, therefore we can't say it is or isn't true.

[The Atheist]

Look, it may seem impossible, but that doesn't mean it necessarily is.

...

How do you know it is impossible that, as Alan McDougall says, a plasma-based life form could exist? How do you know that it is impossible for a light-based life-form to exist? For that matter, how do you know, beyond even a remote possibility, that the sun itself is not sentient? It's my position that it may or may not be, but I cannot know for sure; in fact I don't spend time or energy wondering, but if it arises, then I am of the position that we do not know, therefore we can't say it is or isn't true.

What you're arguing is that anything at all is possible. While that is true in absolute theory, it seems a bit pointless to me.

It's best summed up by the lunatic "Invisible Pink Unicorn" idea and I see no merit in it whatsoever. While encouraging people to think outside the parameters we already have is good, encouraging people to think that the absurdly wrong is possible just encourages sloppy and wishful thinking.

There's enough of that around already.

(I'm pretty confident microbes don't conceive anything as well)

[Alan McDougall]

Fusion only takes place at the centre of the sun at enormous temperatures of billions of degrees c

The surface on the sun on the other hand is relatively cool at some 1000 degrees c Beings consisting of dense plasma could easily exist there

[The Atheist]

Beings consisting of dense plasma could easily exist there


... encouraging people to think that the absurdly wrong is possible just encourages sloppy and wishful thinking.


QED

Beings made from plasma are a perfect example of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Why not have intelligent dark matter or ultra-clever photons?

[NikolaiI]

QED

Beings made from plasma are a perfect example of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Why not have intelligent dark matter or ultra-clever photons?

Why think anything about those things at all? I do not. But you were strongly denying the possibility of life existing on the sun. And again your arguments against the impossibility of it are no different than countless arguments in the past against things which now-a-days are more than common. I am not arguing for life on the sun.

But I am trying to point out to you something which you didn't quite grasp. The microbe-to-human level of difference is something which should be an indication of what is possibly existing elsewhere in the universe. It shows that there can be such gaps of size and so forth to make one life-form, humans, imperceptible through giganticism; as well as the fact that microbes were, for millenia, unknown to us.

It is rather like Sri Aurobindo's brilliant point: before humans evolved, what suspicion could our predecessors have possibly had that a species would one day cross the oceans, manipulate the elements to make cities and civilizations, and live according to laws based on reason. And if they could imagine this, what shadow of thought could they have gained that we would come from them? He analyzes like this with the intention of showing that there is a further step beyond us, that of a divine life when we may live as enlightening beings, endowed with godly nature.

[The Atheist]

Why think anything about those things at all? I do not. But you were strongly denying the possibility of life existing on the sun. And again your arguments against the impossibility of it are no different than countless arguments in the past against things which now-a-days are more than common. I am not arguing for life on the sun.

Can you give an analogy of things which were thought to be impossible, but proved not to be? I doubt that any will fit the scenario, so let's look at that angle first.

I realise you're not trying to find life on the sun, but the reasons for there never being any are pretty straightforward and just won't stack up in any fashion beyond some wild hope that the impossible may be possible.


But I am trying to point out to you something which you didn't quite grasp. The microbe-to-human level of difference is something which should be an indication of what is possibly existing elsewhere in the universe. It shows that there can be such gaps of size and so forth to make one life-form, humans, imperceptible through giganticism; as well as the fact that microbes were, for millenia, unknown to us.

There is a fallacy in there to kick off. Microbes were known but simply not seen because we didn't have the measuring equipment. The knowledge of microbes causing infection is thousand sof years old. There is a wealth of difference between not being able to see and being unknown.

Secondly, the microbe -> human gap isn't as wide as you make it out.

Both are structures based on a cellular system, using DNA enclosed in a cellulose casing. They are actually remarkably similar, albeit one more advanced than the other.


It is rather like Sri Aurobindo's brilliant point: before humans evolved, what suspicion could our predecessors have possibly had that a species would one day cross the oceans, manipulate the elements to make cities and civilizations, and live according to laws based on reason. And if they could imagine this, what shadow of thought could they have gained that we would come from them? He analyzes like this with the intention of showing that there is a further step beyond us, that of a divine life when we may live as enlightening beings, endowed with godly nature.

I don't accept Auro's point. Ancient civilisations give pointers to the shape of future thinking. I think he was a bit naive.

[Alan McDougall]

Atheist,

If you could go back in time as show your cell phone to the authorities of the time they would believe you to be a wizard or worse maybe even burn you at the stake.

Photons have strange properties and one photon can interact instantly with another even if the two are at separate ends of the universe

How bleak grey and monochrome the world would be without the mysterious and mystical and supernatural. Yesterdays supernatural is today's science.

There is absolutely no scientific reason why beings made out of plasma could not exist on the surface of the sun.

Entities called extremaphyles exist in hostile places on our earth such as the deep ocean trenches in caustic volcanic larva.

[The Atheist]

Atheist,

If you could go back in time as show your cell phone to the authorities of the time they would believe you to be a wizard or worse maybe even burn you at the stake.

This is an abject fallacy. There were lots of people smart enough to have explained to them how the technology works. I'm pretty confident the Platos and Socrates' would have been able to grasp it. Fantasy and technology are quite different.


Photons have strange properties and one photon can interact instantly with another even if the two are at separate ends of the universe

No. You'll need to come up with some evidence or admit this is nonsensical. Neither photons nor anything else can interact with other particles not in their locality.


How bleak grey and monochrome the world would be without the mysterious and mystical and supernatural. Yesterdays supernatural is today's science.

Wrong. Yesterday's supernatural is still today's supernatural. Alchemists failed and we know they will never turn lead into gold. If you bother checking, you'll find that yesterday's supernatural largely faded away during the 18th and 19th centuries as people accepted scientific explanations. It's only the last 60-odd years that irrational belief in the paranormal/supernatural has shown signs of re-emergence.

I find the idea that the world and universe is less interesting without fairies and phantoms to be astounding. There is enough wonder and colour in the material universe to last me a lot more lifetimes than I have available.


There is absolutely no scientific reason why beings made out of plasma could not exist on the surface of the sun.

Yes there are. No water, no oxygen, too much radiation, too hot, .... plenty more.

You could stretch the meaning of "being" to include an agglomeration of plasma, but there's no possibility of anything I'd class as a "being".


Entities called extremaphyles exist in hostile places on our earth such as the deep ocean trenches in caustic volcanic larva.

Nothing terribly strange in that - the heat is minor compared to the sun, and of course water and oxygen exist. We have thermal and volcanic lakes with sulphur-eating microbes in them in this country. Very pretty patterns they make, but none of 'em think. FYI, they're extremophiles.

[Red-Headed]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061204_mm_anthropic_debate.html

[NikolaiI]

Can you give an analogy of things which were thought to be impossible, but proved not to be? I doubt that any will fit the scenario, so let's look at that angle first.

Flight, computers, space flight, electricity, light bulbs, etc.


There is a fallacy in there to kick off. Microbes were known but simply not seen because we didn't have the measuring equipment. The knowledge of microbes causing infection is thousand sof years old. There is a wealth of difference between not being able to see and being unknown.

Secondly, the microbe -> human gap isn't as wide as you make it out.

Both are structures based on a cellular system, using DNA enclosed in a cellulose casing. They are actually remarkably similar, albeit one more advanced than the other.

The difference is pretty big, actually. DNA-wise, yes, they are almost the same. All life on Earth has virtually the same DNA. But it is a fallacy to say therefore that all life is almost the same. Obviously a small difference in the structure of DNA is not the same as a small difference in attributes, behavior, etc.

Humans have the possibility for self-realization, while microbes do not. In fact animals do not, what to speak of microbes.


I don't accept Auro's point. Ancient civilisations give pointers to the shape of future thinking. I think he was a bit naive.

I am not speaking of ancient civilizations. I was speaking of apes, or rather the species directly preceding humans. The point is that apes, probably, could not imagine that there might one day be a creature living on earth who would build civilizations, cross the oceans, travel in airplanes, and live according to laws based on reason, etc. All of these things are vastly beyond apes, who by our studying show to have some intelligence, but not nearly enough to grasp such concepts well.

The point is - there is a step beyond humanity, as equally as far beyond us, with our current stage in advancement, as we are beyond the apes. Reason is to instinct as divinity is to reason, in a crude analogy. The divine life, which Sri Aurobindo dedicated his life to, may be understood in this somewhat crude way. To many it is below the radar - who thinks of this? The example, if one meditates on it, is clear as day and quite positive evidence. Just compare ourselves our predecessors, apes, and then put ourselves in the situation of the apes and realize that beyond what we are capable of conceiving there must be a divine life, though it is unmanifest to us now.

And frankly, though I respect you very much, I respect Sri Aurobindo more, as one of the most brilliant philosophers who has ever lived. The fact that you disagree with him is not a problem. :)

[NikolaiI]

Photons have strange properties and one photon can interact instantly with another even if the two are at separate ends of the universe


No. You'll need to come up with some evidence or admit this is nonsensical. Neither photons nor anything else can interact with other particles not in their locality.

I do not know a great deal of quantum mechanics, but I know that photons do not behavior linearly. They jump around in unexpected ways. I've heard about what Alan said as well: when you have a pair of photons, going in different directions, and you change one of them, the other one changes, as close as we can tell, instantaneously, and apparently regardless of space. But I'm not an authority, but I've heard about it from people who are very interested in phsyics and read that type of stuff.


Alan, is this what you're talking about?

http://en.scientificcommons.org/22532961

[The Atheist]

Flight, computers, space flight, electricity, light bulbs, etc.

There are the fallacies.

Thinkers in previous centuries certainly never classed flight as impossible and it's merely urban legend which says so. Obviously, men saw birds and bats flying, so flight was clearly possible.

Electricity couldn't be said to have been thought to be impossible, since it wasn't conceived until it was realised that lightning is an electrical charge.

Same goes for light bulbs and space travel.


The difference is pretty big, actually. DNA-wise, yes, they are almost the same. All life on Earth has virtually the same DNA. But it is a fallacy to say therefore that all life is almost the same.

I didn't say that, read again.


Obviously a small difference in the structure of DNA is not the same as a small difference in attributes, behavior, etc.

Clearly, and since humans and apes share extremely close DNA but cannot interbreed, those tiny differences are enormous.


Humans have the possibility for self-realization, while microbes do not. In fact animals do not, what to speak of microbes.

I am not speaking of ancient civilizations. I was speaking of apes, or rather the species directly preceding humans. The point is that apes, probably, could not imagine that there might one day be a creature living on earth who would build civilizations, cross the oceans, travel in airplanes, and live according to laws based on reason, etc. All of these things are vastly beyond apes, who by our studying show to have some intelligence, but not nearly enough to grasp such concepts well.

Well, this would require animals having imagination or it's meaningless. I've seen no sign of animalian imagination to date, nor do I know of any genuine studies which support the idea. You may as well ask whether rocks imagined civilisation as we have it.


The point is - there is a step beyond humanity, as equally as far beyond us, with our current stage in advancement, as we are beyond the apes. Reason is to instinct as divinity is to reason, in a crude analogy. The divine life, which Sri Aurobindo dedicated his life to, may be understood in this somewhat crude way. To many it is below the radar - who thinks of this? The example, if one meditates on it, is clear as day and quite positive evidence. Just compare ourselves our predecessors, apes, and then put ourselves in the situation of the apes and realize that beyond what we are capable of conceiving there must be a divine life, though it is unmanifest to us now.

And frankly, though I respect you very much, I respect Sri Aurobindo more, as one of the most brilliant philosophers who has ever lived. The fact that you disagree with him is not a problem. :)

Quite right.

I just need a good deal more convincing!

:)


I do not know a great deal of quantum mechanics, but I know that photons do not behavior linearly. They jump around in unexpected ways. I've heard about what Alan said as well: when you have a pair of photons, going in different directions, and you change one of them, the other one changes, as close as we can tell, instantaneously, and apparently regardless of space. But I'm not an authority, but I've heard about it from people who are very interested in phsyics and read that type of stuff.

I have no problem with that, but that is with pairs of photons. Members of those pairs are not at different locations, which was the assertion.

[Alan McDougall]

Atheist before you insult people check out your facts, quantum particles can interact INSTANTLY even is separated by billions of light years.

THe life you speak of is carbon water based, life elsewhere might not have taken this path, silicon based life is possible etc

Nonlocality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In physics, nonlocality is a direct influence of one object on another distant object, in violation of the principle of locality. In classical physics, nonlocality in the form of action at a distance appeared in corpuscular theories and later disappeared in field theories. As action at a distance, nonlocality is incompatible with relativity. However, with quantum physics nonlocality re-appeared in the form of entanglement, where its physical reality has been demonstrated experimentally[1] together with the absence of local hidden variables. While entanglement is compatible with relativity, it prompts some of the more philosophically oriented discussions concerning quantum theory.

[The Atheist]

Atheist before you insult people check out your facts, quantum particles can interact INSTANTLY even is separated by billions of light years.

First off, I don't think I've insulted anyone at any stage.

As to the facts, the fact is that no nonlocality has been more than postulated outside of pairs of particles. Here's Physorg (http://www.physorg.com/news113824784.html):


So far, no experiment has sufficiently demonstrated the nonlocality of a single particle

The idea that particles separated by billions of light years can interact is just fantasy. For starters, you're ignoring that measurement is currently impossible in those kind of spans. The fastest signals humans can use travel at light speed and we couldn't measure particles a light second apart, let alone billions of light years.


THe life you speak of is carbon water based, life elsewhere might not have taken this path, silicon based life is possible etc

According to Star Trek, sure, but I don't know of any serious science which suggests silicon-based life is likely. Plus, the original problem wasn't that life must be carbon-based - I was pointing out that ideas like sentient plasma were just science fiction.


Nonlocality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


From that link:


Thus, the definition of nonlocality, given in the beginning of this article, is tentative.

[pagebypage]

Ah, the Tao of Physics stuff rearing its head again. I haven't read a debate over this for, what, five days now. LOL

Entanglement isn't really that hard to sort out. You have two paired particles spontaneously formed from the decay of another. For demonstration purposes let's posit their states as being 1, -1 or 1/2, -1/2. Now it can appear that the state of particle B is contingent on the state of particle A; that is, if one measures A as a -1, B is a 1, or if A is a 1/2, B is a -1/2 but in actuality the states of A and B are determined. No matter what state A is in, B will always be its corresponding opposite. That is the nature of the function. The seeming interaction across space is only an artifact of measurement. One fixes the value of A, thus one fixes the value of B, but nothing mystical or "nonlocal" takes place.

I have to score one for the atheist in this particular case.

[Alan McDougall]

Ah, the Tao of Physics stuff rearing its head again. I haven't read a debate over this for, what, five days now. LOL

Entanglement isn't really that hard to sort out. You have two paired particles spontaneously formed from the decay of another. For demonstration purposes let's posit their states as being 1, -1 or 1/2, -1/2. Now it can appear that the state of particle B is contingent on the state of particle A; that is, if one measures A as a -1, B is a 1, or if A is a 1/2, B is a -1/2 but in actuality the states of A and B are determined. No matter what state A is in, B will always be its corresponding opposite. That is the nature of the function. The seeming interaction across space is only an artifact of measurement. One fixes the value of A, thus one fixes the value of B, but nothing mystical or "nonlocal" takes place.

I have to score one for the atheist in this particular case.

AH!! But information is passed instantly between the two localities is it not?

[pagebypage]

No. Nothing is passed. It is inherent in the function. The contingency rests with the measurement. The "results" are always there. For instance, consider the simple function 3X=Y. The relationship is set for X and Y; it is already determined. The contingency rests when I pick an X (or a Y). Same with entanglement. The relationship is set at their inception. My observing A doesn't transfer some information to B that determines what B's state will be. B is in that state with respect to A whether I measure or not. But I can determine the state of B at a particular instant because I measured the state of A at a particular instant (just as I can determine a unique Y because I know a unique X). The only "information" involved is that of a measured result, not a transmission.

This isn't to say that physicist someday won't be able to use this function to transfer information across distances, just as we transfer information by switching 1's and 0's, but just as the information is not the one's and zeros but what we make them represent, so too with these entangled states.

[Alan McDougall]

* 15:44 16 December 2008 by Colin Barras
* For similar stories, visit the Quantum World Topic Guide

New Scientist

Quantum entanglement, which Einstein dubbed "spooky action at a distance", would be the perfect way to communicate data – if technical hurdles could be overcome.

The method involves linking the quantum properties of two objects such that a change to one is instantly reflected in the other – offering a whole new way to transmit information from opposite sides of the globe.

Entanglement has already been exploited as a way to securely share pass phrases for secret communications, but only over distances of less than 200 kilometres. The inability of the gas-based quantum computer memory used to hold onto information for more than a fraction of a second is to blame.

Now a way to have that memory store quantum information for longer opens up the possibility of entangled communication over 1000 kilometres.
Short memory

While regular computer DRAM memory – which stores information as 1s and 0s, or digital bits – is also short lived, it is repeatedly rewritten every 9 to 70 nanoseconds to keep the data fresh.

But quantum information, stored in quantum bits called qubits, cannot be simply refreshed. The rules of quantum mechanics mean that reading out the state of a qubit changes that state. This means you cannot recreate the previous piece of data because you don't know what it was.

Holding onto a memory even for a fraction of a second is difficult for qubits, says Stewart Jenkins at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

That limits the distance over which entanglement can be used because it requires the state of one qubit to be copied to another, distant qubit. The message is carried by photons which, although they travel at light speed, still take time to get there.

If the first qubit has forgotten the quantum state it transmitted by the time the photons reach their destination, entanglement cannot happen. The first qubit must be able to hold onto its memory long enough for the second to match it.
Magnetic shield

Jenkins and colleagues have now succeeded in creating quantum memories that last for 7.2 microseconds – more than two orders of magnitude longer than previously reported, and time enough to transmit quantum information over 1000 kilometres.

While qubits made in other ways can hold memories for longer, they struggle to transfer them to photons.

The team's qubits are stored in gas atoms, encoded into a magnetic property known as "spin". The key to lengthening the attention span of gas qubits is to shield them from magnetic fields that can distort their spin and dissolve the stored state.

Jenkins' team has done just that by encoding the spin information into particular energy levels within the atoms that are relatively immune to magnetic disturbances.

However, there are still "several technical hurdles to jump" before quantum communication over 1000 km is possible, says Jenkins.

[pagebypage]

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing002.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

I guess I stand corrected in giving physicists more credit than is their due.

I gather it all comes down to how one interprets Bell's experiments and whether hidden variables exist. Non locality implies a violations of relativity and, as far as I know, no experiments have demonstrated that. So I would think a conservative interpretation would be that Bell's theorem still holds, there are no hidden variables, non locality is but, at best, a competing hypothesis and, by association, so too the nature of entanglement as you posit.

Not to say that you are wrong but more that I am in a competing camp of interpretation. So before we start pulling out cats to kill/not kill, I'll simply yield.

[Shalot]

The original post reminds me of a book I just read called The Field by Lynne McTaggart. Mabye you've read it (this is to the original poster) and maybe you can suggest other books that are similar?